On 6/30/2016 4:27 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Daniel Jurgens <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 6/30/2016 3:28 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Dan Jurgens <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> From: Daniel Jurgens <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Add nine new hooks >>>> 1. Allocate security contexts for Infiniband QPs. >>>> 2. Free security contexts for Infiniband QPs. >>>> 3. Allocate security contexts for Infiniband MAD agents. >>>> 4. Free security contexts for Infiniband MAD agents. >>>> 5. Enforce QP access to Pkeys >>>> 6. Enforce MAD agent access to Pkeys >>>> 7. Enforce MAD agent access to Infiniband End Ports for sending Subnet >>>> Management Packets (SMP) >>>> 8. A hook to register a callback to receive notifications of >>>> security policy or enforcement changes. Restricting a QPs access to >>>> a pkey will be done during setup and not on a per packet basis >>>> access must be enforced again. >>>> 9. A hook to unregister the callback. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Jurgens <[email protected]> >>>> Reviewed-by: Eli Cohen <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> include/linux/security.h | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> include/rdma/ib_verbs.h | 4 +++ >>>> security/Kconfig | 9 +++++ >>>> security/security.c | 83 >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 5 files changed, 230 insertions(+) >>> I'd recommend putting the IB hook calls into this patch as well, it >>> helps make the hooks a bit more concrete as you can see where, and how >>> they are called. >> Do you mean add them with SELinux hook implementations? Or with the the >> IB/Core code where they are called? > I mean the IB changes. That way a single patch has both the hook > declarations and their calling locations; it helps make the hooks a > bit less abstract. > > The SELinux hook implementations should be kept separate. > >> I tried as best as I could to avoid mingling LSM, IB/Core, and SELinux >> changes. Hoping to minimize the burden of a single patch needing acceptance >> from multiple maintainers and synchronization problems that could create. I >> could split this up and add the hooks where they are actually used if you >> don't think that's problem though. > Ultimately the entire patchset needs to get acceptance from the IB and > SELinux folks, with no objections from any of the other LSM > maintainers. My guess is, I'll probably be the one who ends up > merging this as it's more SELinux than anything else, but I'll want a > thumbs-up/ACK from the IB folks before I do that. OK, I can split this patch up and squash to the respective IB core patches where they are first used.
_______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]. To get help, send an email containing "help" to [email protected].
